Southern Ocean Heating - re: "Irreversible" on SA headline

AClass USA 230

Anarchist
961
52
Louisiana
This article was referenced in the headline today of SA under the banner of "Irreversible". Here is an excerpt:

We used a computational global ocean circulation model to examine exactly how ocean warming has played out over the last 50 years. And we found the Southern Ocean has dominated the global absorption of heat. In fact, Southern Ocean heat uptake accounts for almost all the planet’s ocean warming, thereby controlling the rate of climate change.

This Southern Ocean warming and its associated impacts are effectively irreversible on human time scales, because it takes millennia for heat trapped deep in the ocean to be released back into the atmosphere.

This means changes happening now will be felt for generations to come – and those changes are only set to get worse, unless we can stop carbon dioxide emissions and achieve net zero.

I'm not a denier of climate change. Climate change has been never ending for millennia long before humans had any impact on the planet. What frustrates me about the above is that it implies humans can create a condition of heat absorption into the Southern Ocean over a time period of no more than 100-150 years, less than the blink of an eye in the planet's evolution. Yet it further states that same amount of heat will take millennia to be released back into the atmosphere (essentially irreversible) and we must "stop carbon dioxide emissions and achieve net zero" now. That sounds like more of a political agenda than fact based science.

Perhaps what we are seeing in the Southern Ocean started longer ago than 50 years (which is what the model above is based upon) and there is a much bigger driver of what is being recorded data wise. This is what alarms me about the climate change movement in the effort to radically change our society and technology. When you scratch hard on their "data", there's not (yet) a lot of foundation built to fully support their "facts". We all witnessed the same thing with the Covid response and there are many more examples.

Recommend taking a look at a great Op-Ed by Andy Kessler at the Wall Street Journal today called "A Faraday is Worth 1,000 Fauci's" which celebrates and contrasts the life and philosophy of Michael Faraday, the father of modern electrical theory against many modern day scientists.
 

EYESAILOR

Super Anarchist
3,526
1,953
Hello AClass........If you think that climate change is "a more of a political agenda than fact based science" then I suggest you take this thread to PA where it belongs.

If you think that the facts should stand on their own merit irrespective of politics then it could be an interesting discussion.

However the very fact that you imply some link between Covid and Climate change makes me think that your view on science is entirely political. The response to Covid had nothing to do with climate change.
 

AClass USA 230

Anarchist
961
52
Louisiana
2’
Hello AClass........If you think that climate change is "a more of a political agenda than fact based science" then I suggest you take this thread to PA where it belongs.

If you think that the facts should stand on their own merit irrespective of politics then it could be an interesting discussion.

However the very fact that you imply some link between Covid and Climate change makes me think that your view on science is entirely political. The response to Covid had nothing to do with climate change.
It’s about frustration with the methodology and a lot of the basis of the science used in a lot of climate science (and other recent issues such as Covid) debates. Whenever anyone makes a statement that the science is settled, you should immediately either question their credentials or their agenda. Science is always about asking questions even on what is considered reliable data. As one who lives on the coast in a hurricane zone with first hand experience of the frequency and intensity of hurricanes over 50 years, I get weary of apocalyptic statements similar to we must stop carbon dioxide emissions as stated in the referenced article. That statement is so oversimplified. It’s not about politics, it‘s about showing accurate data to discuss, debate, and try to draw conclusions from.

Take a look at our own sport. Do you think the science is settled? I know you don’t. If you can, take a read of the WSJ Op-Ed above I referenced above. I read that Op-Ed before I read the article this thread references. It inspired me!
 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
44,269
9,611
Eastern NC
2’

It’s about frustration with the methodology and a lot of the basis of the science used in a lot of climate science (and other recent issues such as Covid) debates. Whenever anyone makes a statement that the science is settled, you should immediately either question their credentials or their agenda. Science is always about asking questions even on what is considered reliable data. As one who lives on the coast in a hurricane zone with first hand experience of the frequency and intensity of hurricanes over 50 years, I get weary of apocalyptic statements similar to we must stop carbon dioxide emissions as stated in the referenced article. That statement is so oversimplified. It’s not about politics, it‘s about showing accurate data to discuss, debate, and try to draw conclusions from.

Take a look at our own sport. Do you think the science is settled? I know you don’t. If you can, take a read of the WSJ Op-Ed above I referenced above. I read that Op-Ed before I read the article this thread references. It inspired me!
Science is never fully "settled." Physicists still argue about gravity, 350 years after Newton.

THE ONE AND ONLY RIGHT ANSWER is religion, not science. Science is just a collection of oddball tricks we've learned over the years, that makes stuff work.
 

Marty Gingras

Mid-range Anarchist
What frustrates me...
That's an article in the popular press. Even so, it described some uncertainties in their findings. Read or even skim the actual scientific article and you'll see that they acknowledge even more uncertainty and aren't political --- because those attributes are typical for actual scientific articles. You may also see how they came up with the notion that especially frustrates you.
 
267
96
Canada
Science is never fully "settled." Physicists still argue about gravity, 350 years after Newton.

THE ONE AND ONLY RIGHT ANSWER is religion, not science. Science is just a collection of oddball tricks we've learned over the years, that makes stuff work.

Dude. Relax. We are all just energy, man, transferring from one state to another until the Star Children deem us enlightened enough to join them on the Mothership and we return to our hive in the Spider Nebula.
 

Max Rockatansky

holy fuckfarts!
3,835
981
Bob,
You might take into consideration that human population expansion isn't linear, it's exponential...

Smiley,
It's hip, on tha Mothership...

1663606960429.png

Smiley
 

Parma

Super Anarchist
2,992
398
here

Beat me to it.

Global pollution & overpopulation are much more real & provable than man made climate change but the screeching SJW types driving the narrative don't want to appear anti-people so they've changed the target.

Personally I think that we still very gradually coming out of an ice age and that global pollution & overpopulation are amplifying the results.

Either way, none of it's any good.
 

JiffyLube

New member
43
4
This article was referenced in the headline today of SA under the banner of "Irreversible". Here is an excerpt:

We used a computational global ocean circulation model to examine exactly how ocean warming has played out over the last 50 years. And we found the Southern Ocean has dominated the global absorption of heat. In fact, Southern Ocean heat uptake accounts for almost all the planet’s ocean warming, thereby controlling the rate of climate change.

This Southern Ocean warming and its associated impacts are effectively irreversible on human time scales, because it takes millennia for heat trapped deep in the ocean to be released back into the atmosphere.


This means changes happening now will be felt for generations to come – and those changes are only set to get worse, unless we can stop carbon dioxide emissions and achieve net zero.

I'm not a denier of climate change. Climate change has been never ending for millennia long before humans had any impact on the planet. What frustrates me about the above is that it implies humans can create a condition of heat absorption into the Southern Ocean over a time period of no more than 100-150 years, less than the blink of an eye in the planet's evolution. Yet it further states that same amount of heat will take millennia to be released back into the atmosphere (essentially irreversible) and we must "stop carbon dioxide emissions and achieve net zero" now. That sounds like more of a political agenda than fact based science.

Perhaps what we are seeing in the Southern Ocean started longer ago than 50 years (which is what the model above is based upon) and there is a much bigger driver of what is being recorded data wise. This is what alarms me about the climate change movement in the effort to radically change our society and technology. When you scratch hard on their "data", there's not (yet) a lot of foundation built to fully support their "facts". We all witnessed the same thing with the Covid response and there are many more examples.

Recommend taking a look at a great Op-Ed by Andy Kessler at the Wall Street Journal today called "A Faraday is Worth 1,000 Fauci's" which celebrates and contrasts the life and philosophy of Michael Faraday, the father of modern electrical theory against many modern day scientists.
The weather is hard to predict seven days out, and they think modeling everything will tell them the real story. If there were never any humans on this planet, climate change would still be happening, just like it has since there was a climate to change.
 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
44,269
9,611
Eastern NC
The weather is hard to predict seven days out, and they think modeling everything will tell them the real story. If there were never any humans on this planet, climate change would still be happening, just like it has since there was a climate to change.
How much oil are humans burning per day? How much coal?
Isn't there something in the basic laws of physics about what happens next?

This is completely disregarding the changes in the characteristics of the atmosphere due to all this human-caused combustion.

Agreed that climate would be changing whether people have anything to do with it, or not. But the idea that we aren't causing any changes is very difficult to justify unless you completely deny a lot of basic/obvious fact.
 

floater

Super Duper Anarchist
4,937
797
quivira regnum
Science is never fully "settled." Physicists still argue about gravity, 350 years after Newton.

THE ONE AND ONLY RIGHT ANSWER is religion, not science. Science is just a collection of oddball tricks we've learned over the years, that makes stuff work.
yeah. pretty sure Einstein ain't all there is - plenty controversy about this. settled science just isn't.
The weather is hard to predict seven days out, and they think modeling everything will tell them the real story. If there were never any humans on this planet, climate change would still be happening, just like it has since there was a climate to change.
you don't have to trust modelling to understand that basic instrument readings - like atmospheric CO2 - have gone absolutely bonkers since the industrial revolution. that's on us.
 

jhc

Super Anarchist
2,366
226
I notice how whenever "climate change" is discussed, there is a tendency for the "deniers" to wander toward an argument that borders on fate, rather than free will, governs our life on the planet.
It's a religious view that has not served humanity well, and continues to wreak havoc with our ability to solve problems in a rational way.
The subject of climate change, and human survivability on earth, is actually quite simple. Man has the ability to wipe the human race from the face of the planet. In more than one way. Will we succumb to hand wringing, and praying, or will we take our place in the world.
The hand wringers and prayers may lose by winning.
I hope not.
I personally would rather we stop the leak, than sink with the ship.
 

Latest posts




Top